AI 资讯

One day last October, sitting in the courtyard of his house in China’s Henan province, Dong Hui decided to see if he could hold a pen to write. Dong, 39, had sustained spinal cord injuries in a car accident six years earlier that left him paralyzed from the neck down. Slowly but determinedly, he wrote…

I've been thinking about a specific version of AI-assisted debugging. Not asking which tool is smarter, but asking about the behavior change that would come from removing the context-setup step entirely. Right now I self-select which debugging problems to involve AI on. The threshold is roughly: is this complex enough that the setup cost is worth paying? Copy the relevant code, copy the error, add context about the project structure, ask my question. It takes a few minutes to do well. If the AI could see my IDE directly, no copying, no pasting, just "look at this and tell me what's wrong," I think my threshold would drop significantly. I'd ask about more things. Smaller things. Things I currently just push through myself because they don't seem worth the setup overhead. Whether the answers would be better because the AI sees the actual screen is a separate question. But the behavioral change from removing the friction might matter more than any quality improvement. If AI debugging had zero setup cost, would you use it differently? Or do you think the current copy-paste step is actually useful because it forces you to think through the problem before you ask? submitted by /u/Professional-Peach-3 [link] [留言]

I use Claude a lot for complex problem-solving and Copilot inline in VS Code for quick completions. The difference in actual usage frequency is something I've started noticing. Copilot I use constantly, basically without thinking about it. Claude I use maybe five times a day, and half the time I talk myself out of opening it because I already know what's coming: copy the relevant code, paste it, add context about the project structure and what I was trying to do, explain the error I'm getting, then finally ask the actual question. The friction is small. But it's consistent enough that I default to struggling through something myself, or Googling, instead of opening Claude. The specific case that gets me most is when the problem is visible on screen. I can see the bug. Claude could probably help me solve it faster. But the work of getting what's visible into Claude's context is just enough friction to make me not bother. Is the gap between ""AI embedded in the tool you're working in"" and ""AI in a separate chat window"" meaningful to other developers, or is this a habit thing I should just push through?" submitted by /u/Queasy_Hotel5158 [link] [留言]

Follow this link to ask your questions during our Ask Me Anything session on the European Parliament's subreddit, 02/06 15.00-16.00 CET. submitted by /u/Marty_ol [link] [留言]

AI agents that find, validate, and fix every vulnerability Discussion | Link

I do analysis of automobile dealership data and prepare reports based on the analysis for management review. I’m getting way better analytics and cleaner reports being built by ChatGPT Plus compared to Claude pro. Claude is consuming too many tokens and sometimes for longer documents it used my 100% of the 5 hour limit which is very annoying. ChatGPT on the other hand feels to me that it has unlimited usage for my requirement. What is the view of you people when using AI for business and financial data analytics? Is anyone else finding ChatGPT nicer too? submitted by /u/TurboChargedV12 [link] [留言]

A question for guys who into unusual programming stuff. i been programming for +12 years now .. first few years it was fun trying all sort of things from assembly x86 to neural networks and computer vision but after finishing college few years ago and getting into corporates and the job market .. i been coding only for work as a backend engineer and programming stoped being a hobby anymore .. especially with ai propaganda that is going on right now. now i want to try a completely different part of programming as a hobby again away from web/app/game development or CV and ML something that is useful and somehow low level. i thought about learning CUDA and exploring other aspects now but its hard to find super geeks now to ask after the AI boom. what other fields you guys are into that are fun, complex and unusual? submitted by /u/zeXas_99 [link] [留言]

Hey everyone, We’re building Antitech , a security layer for AI agents and LLM-powered workflows. We’re opening a small number of free early-access assessments for teams/builders working on AI agents. If you give us access to an endpoint of a Dockerized / sandboxed environment of your agent, we’ll test it against common and emerging AI-agent attack vectors, including: Prompt injection Indirect prompt injection Tool abuse Data leakage / exfiltration Fake authority / malicious context Unsafe agent behavior Weak guardrails and policy bypasses In return, you get a free vulnerability report showing what we found, how serious it is, and practical recommendations to harden your agent. This is completely free. No catch. We’re doing this because we want to work closely with real AI-agent builders while shaping the product. Early participants will also get: A big discount once the final product is ready Insider updates while we build Early access to new features The option to become a design partner Priority access to future assessments What we need from you: An endpoint of a sandboxed/Docker environment Permission to test within agreed boundaries A short feedback call after the report We won’t publicly disclose anything without your permission. If you’re building AI agents and want to know how they can be attacked before someone else finds out the hard way, DM me or comment below. submitted by /u/TheAchraf99 [link] [留言]

I’ve been working on Keylight, a licensing layer for macOS apps, and one of the more interesting technical problems has been designing license checks that work both online and offline. The basic problem sounds simple: “Is this app allowed to run?” But in practice, there are a lot of edge cases: What happens if the user bought the app, but is currently offline? How long should an offline lease stay valid? How do you prevent a license from being copied forever? How do you handle device limits without making the app annoying? What happens when a subscription expires while the app is offline? How do you rotate SDK/API keys without breaking old app versions? How much should be checked locally vs on the server? The approach I’m using is roughly: The app validates against the server when online The server returns a signed local license lease The app can continue working offline for a limited period Device activations are tracked server-side Renewals, upgrades, and revocations update the next lease Old SDK keys can be retired gradually instead of breaking existing builds It’s a small part of the product, but it has been one of the most interesting engineering decisions so far. Curious how others would design this. Would you keep most licensing logic server-side, or allow more local verification with signed license files? And for desktop apps, what do you think is a fair offline grace period? submitted by /u/nicolas1410 [link] [留言]

Hi everyone, I need some career advice. I'm from a non-IT background and have been working in a small company for the last 2.5 years, mainly doing HTML and WordPress work. I don't have much exposure to modern development, and with AI changing the industry so fast, I'm worried about my future career growth. I'm thinking of joining an offline Full Stack Development course in Chennai because online learning hasn't worked well for me. I'm confused between **Java Full Stack** and **Python Full Stack**. For those who have experience in this field: * Which stack would you recommend? * Which institute is better: Besant Technologies, Greens Technology, or FITA Academy? * Are there any better alternatives in Chennai? I want to learn real-world projects and build skills that can help me get better opportunities. I'm 2.5 years into my career and don't want to make the wrong decision at this stage. Any guidance, personal experiences really help full for me. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! submitted by /u/Best-Quantity-4749 [link] [留言]

I've been paying attention to my own workflow lately and noticed a lot of my time goes into moving stuff between AI sessions, not the actual thinking. Like I'll get an output in one session and then manually bring the relevant pieces into another so it has what it needs. What I can't tell is how much of that is necessary vs. me just being sloppy. So I'm curious how others handle it: When you move from one session to another, what do you actually carry over? Just the output, or also the reasoning, the decisions, the constraints, what to avoid? Have you ever handed off too little and the second session went sideways? Or too much and it got lost in the noise? Does anyone have a mental rule for what's "enough context" to pass along? Trying to figure out if there's a clean pattern here or if it's just inherently messy. Curious what people have landed on. submitted by /u/riley_kim [link] [留言]

I build a security platform. Last night I stopped adding features and did something less fun and more honest: I sat down to make every capability prove it actually works — end to end, with real data, demanding a real pass or fail. "It ran" is not a pass. A page that renders is not a feature. A green checkmark is a claim, not evidence. So I went capability by capability and tried to break each one. I found four real bugs and one of them was a gut-punch: a whole detection engine that was wired into the UI, unit-tested, and never actually ran in production. Here's how the night went. The rule: drive it, don't admire it My method was boring on purpose. For each capability: Feed it real input through the real entry point (CLI or API), not a test fixture. Check the data actually landed (query the DB, don't trust the success message). Feed it a malicious input and a benign input — it has to fire on one and stay quiet on the other. The detection engine passed cleanly. I threw a PsExec process event at it and it lit up: $ zds-core detection eval --event '{"event_type":"process_create","process_name":"psexec.exe"}' 1 alert ( s ) : [ high] PsExec Execution — ( matched: map[process_name:psexec.exe] ) A wevtutil cl Security event tripped a critical "Log Clearing" rule. A plain notepad.exe matched nothing. Good — it detects, and it doesn't cry wolf. (Small UX papercut I fixed while I was there: if you forgot the event_type field, the engine silently matched nothing and printed "no rules matched" — which reads exactly like "you're safe." Now it warns you that the event can't match any rule. Silence that looks like safety is the most dangerous output a security tool can produce.) The one that hurt: ITDR Identity Threat Detection and Response. The engine has detectors for impossible travel, credential spraying, brute force, privilege escalation. All unit-tested. All green. I ran the real flow: POST two login events for one user — New York, then London thirty minutes later. That's ~5

15 years ago Akamai was the CDN network every tv station was using to distribute their content on, but from what I can remember they were also crazy expensive. Nowadays I still noticed that most major companies use Akamai but with strong competition from AWS. Did Akamai became more price friendly or did AWS become to have to same amount of local nodes? submitted by /u/Sure-Guest1588 [link] [留言]

How to make LLMs deterministic, in plain English. The version I share with founders and product teams before they make decisions worth real money. You use AI tools every day. But can you explain what happens when you hit send? Most people cannot. And that gap is costing them. Bad prompts. Broken products. Decisions made on the wrong assumptions. The Hard Truth Every LLM explainer out there is written for researchers or so basic it tells you nothing useful. Neither helps you build better products or work with AI more effectively. This is the version I share with senior leaders, founders, and product teams before they make decisions worth real money. 1. It Is Not a Search Engine. It Is Not a Database. It Is a Prediction Machine. When you type a prompt and hit send, the LLM is not finding an answer from somewhere. It is predicting the most likely words to follow your input. Based on patterns it learned from billions of documents. That is the whole process. Wrong: "The AI knows the answer." Right: "The AI predicts the most likely answer based on what it has seen." This changes everything about how you use it. When an AI gives you a wrong answer confidently, it is not broken. It is doing exactly what it was built to do. Predict. Not verify. 2. The Autocomplete Comparison (And Why It Only Gets You Halfway) You have probably heard the phrase "autocomplete on steroids." It is not wrong. But it misses something important. Your phone autocomplete learned from your messages. An LLM learned from most of the written internet. Books. Research papers. Code. Billions of examples. At that scale, the patterns start to look a lot like real thinking. Not because the model understands in the way you do. Because it has seen so much that it can predict what a good answer looks like. When I was building AstroNayak I fed Vedic astrology principles into the system prompt. The LLM produced interpretations that genuinely surprised me. It did not know Vedic astrology. It had seen enough of it t

Submission Template Challenge: Build With Hermes Agent Project: CompliScore AI compliance health checks for Indian startups Repo/live-demo: https://github.com/nehaprasad-dev/hermes-scout What I built CompliScore gives Indian startup founders a compliance score out of 100 in under a minute - overdue GST filings, MCA returns, penalty exposure, and a plain-English action plan. The upgrade for this challenge: I replaced the one-shot Groq summary with a Hermes Agent reasoning loop that plans an investigation, calls deterministic compliance tools, and writes a prioritized report - with a collapsible agent trace so judges can see the agentic work. Why an agent loop fits here Compliance analysis is conditional. A company with overdue GST needs a filing-calendar deep dive; one with active notices needs notice triage; a clean company needs a light touch. A single prompt guesses all of this at once. An agent that calls tools based on what it finds produces tighter, grounded reports. Hermes Agent integration Scan → computeHealth (deterministic score) → Hermes Agent loop (plan → tool calls → report) → agent trace in UI ↓ on failure Groq one-shot → static fallback Four tools exposed to Hermes (scores never hallucinated): Tool Purpose score_company Canonical score, risk level, pending tasks estimate_penalty GST / MCA / notice penalty breakdown filing_calendar GSTR-3B, GSTR-1, MCA deadlines (90-day horizon) classify_notices Severity labels for pending government notices The agent runs over Hermes's OpenAI-compatible /chat/completions API with function calling — self-hostable via vLLM, LM Studio, Ollama, etc. Transparency: Every successful agent run returns an agentTrace — plan steps, tool names, compact result previews — rendered in a collapsible panel under the AI action plan. Reliability: Three-tier fallback (Hermes → Groq → static). Scans never break. Tech stack Next.js 16 (App Router), TypeScript, Tailwind v4 Hermes Agent (OpenAI-compatible tool-calling loop) Groq fallback ( ll